This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Both Liberals and Conservatives Hate Corporate Socialism (Where the Federal Government Favors Giant Corporations at the Expense of the Little Guy)
President Obama has "compromised" on everything from financial regulation and healthcare to taxes.
Obama
claims that all of his "compromising" shows that he's getting things
done. After all, politics was long ago defined as "the art of
compromise".
On it's face, it makes sense that if both
conservatives and liberals hate legislation, it must mean that there was
give-and-take, and it ended up somewhere in the middle.
But that isn't necessarily true.
Specifically, as I pointed out last month:
Conservatives tend to view big government with suspicion, and think that government should be held accountable and reined in.
Liberals tend to view big corporations with suspicion, and think that they should be held accountable and reined in.
Okay, stay with me here for a minute ...
Conservatives hate big unfettered government and liberals hate big unchecked corporations, so both hate legislation which encourages the federal government to reward big corporations at the expense of small businesses.
As an example, both liberals and conservatives
are angry that the feds are propping up the giant banks - while letting
small banks fail by the hundreds - even though that is horrible for the economy and Main Street.
The
Dodd-Frank financial legislation wasn't a compromise where things
landed somewhere in the middle between liberal and conservatives ideas.
Instead, it enshrines big government propping up the big banks ... more
ore less permanently.
Many liberals and conservatives
look at the government's approach to the financial crisis as socialism
for the rich and free market capitalism for the little guy. No wonder
both liberals and conservatives hate it.
And it's not just the
big banks. Americans are angry that the federal government under both
Bush and Obama have handed giant defense contractors like Blackwater and
Halliburton no-bid contracts. They are mad that - instead of cracking
down on BP - the government has acted like BP's p.r. spokesman-in-chief
and sugar daddy.
They
are peeved that companies like Monsanto are able to sell genetically
modified foods without any disclosure, and that small farmers are
getting sued when Monsanto crops drift onto their fields.
They
are mad that Obama promised "change" - i.e. standing up to Wall Street
and the other powers-that-be - but is just delivering more of the same.
They
are furious that there is no separation between government and a
handful of favored giant corporations. In other words, Americans are
angry that we've gone from capitalism to oligarchy.
So
if both liberals and conservatives hate something, it doesn't
necessarily mean it's a compromise. It may mean that they feel disenfranchised from a government that is of the powerful and for the powerful.
- advertisements -
Oligharchy will lead you to Jack London's Iron Heel, publ 1908...which preceded Orwell's 1984.
Iron Heel lays bare the oligharchy and its pre-destined course over our lives.
In the Iron Heel, the socialists win in the end. It just takes several centuries for that to happen.
The term is "statist"... http://www.nolanchart.com
Conservatives and Liberals both have statists running their respective parties. Libertarianism is the answer.
Bingo! +1
Our very own Mr. George Washington yesterday was calling for a new corporate welfare program, under the Orwellian title of "Network Neutrality".
I think those who cannot think in principles are doomed to keep calling for more and more statism "for the public good" and thus unwittingly make themselves dupes for whichever special interest group has managed to capture the flag labelled "the public interest" for the moment.
Try corporate statism.
And Libertarianism?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/congress-threatens-to-sow_...
Yeah, Ron. Just what we need. More so-called "market" regulation like we've had for the past 10+ years which turned a blind-eye to predatory practices and fraud.
Ron Paul reminds me of someone's cranky Grandpa screaming, "Now, you kids just behave!" and expecting it to work.
Yeah, the kids will police themsleves.
And GW, this post is about the lamest thus far.
RonPaul doesn't believe in most regulation, but RonPaul does believe in prosecuting fraud. If all fraud in government and corporations was prosecuted the past 20, 30, 40 years... life would be vastly better.
I do believe a couple "clarifications" about fraud are necessary. Essentially, that "sellers" must provide full, complete descriptions of all aspects of the products and services they are selling. The current system protects scams by allowing very important details to be covered up by sellers. That must end. And when it does, fraud laws will cover just about every situation. Just about.
Hey flattrader how's the weather in the world you live in? What "market regulation" has been allowed to occur the past few decades let alone ten years? Banks have no reason to compete on safety because of the Fed/FDIC, they compete for yield on deposits which they can get only be taking on more risk. This risk doesn't have to be carefully balanced with some semblance of safety because why would anybody run to pull their money out of an institution where their deposits are guaranteed? The entire banking industry is a government-enforced cartel via the Federal Reserve. They ensure that no matter how reckless financial institutions may act they will be there to hand them out free money and manipulate interest rates; oh boy, what a free market! Are you really dumb enough to believe that a system where banks are forced by the market to compete on safety and don't have the Fed/FDIC to back them will be more risky than one in which prudence is punished and extravagance rewarded? I feel truly sorry for your lack of logical reaosning skills if that's the case; actually, I already feel sorry for somebody stupid enough to think that 70,000 pages of regulations enforced by over 100 federal agencies/departments is a free market. Clown.
Chris88,
You asked--
>>>What "market regulation" has been allowed to occur the past few decades let alone ten years?<<<
This--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
Almost 10 years.
Are you dumb and stupid enough to believe that the hands-off free market regulation approach to...let's say derivatives by the CFTC at Greenspan's insistence (on neutering the CFTC with the CFMA) didn't lead us exactly to where we are now?
Even Greenspan, Ayn Rand's fawning admirer, admitted he was wrong.
I suppose you believe it's fine for banking institutions to nearly destory a national economy and disrupt global finances as Mr. Market will eventually step in to regulate...which always happens post-destruction.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html
It seems the clown shoes fit you just fine.
When the CFTC and Greenspan decided to not regulate derivatives, they should have let them eat their own loses. That's a free market. The Fed bailed them out. You need consistancy for it to work.
no enforecement of laws = crime for all
crime without punishment = more crime
unlimited influence of money on elections and policy = corrupt system and criminal oligarchy
Agreed. Unfortunately I fear we'll not see real election reform until after a total collapse.
Nail on the head, Richard. When your dog pisses on the carpet you rub it's nose in it and discipline it, you don't give it a treat, pet it, then scratch your head when you come home from work the next day and step in dog piss. Ah government, the greatest facilitator of moral hazard known to man.
Lol so the commodity futures modernization act of 2000 is what allowed banks to get away with virtually infinite credit expansion which lengthened productive processes to unsustainable levels which eventually became unprofitable when the credit wasn't supplied at even more rapid rate? That's probably one of funniest explanations I've ever heard, hell, it's right up there with Krugman saying Asians saving money caused the housing bubble. I still would like to know whether banks having to compete on safety/return would be sounder than banks only competing on return. I know giving an honest answer would tear your world apart, but just try your best to use logic.
As for your other funny comment, Greenspan (the head of Marx's 5th plank in the US - more big time free markets!) was a proponent of a gold standard at one time; not a free market money, but a government-enforced gold standard (which would be better than the crap we have now but still misses the point). Secondly, if you confuse Rand with the Austrian school (which you seem to have no idea about anyway) you're making a big mistake. The differences can go on for pages, but to give you a tiny little hint Rand's cult was known as "Objectivism" while the Austrian school developed a subjective theory of value thus making an irreconciable difference between the two. Keep on living in lala land.
I've come to expect that generally ZH readers understand that the free-market wild west in derivatives trading was the spark that ignited the meltdown and brought us to where we are now (and LTCM in the late 1990s.) Obviously some choose to ignore recent history.
Given that notational derivatives now exceed the 2008 amount and are still unregulated (no help from Frank-Dodd) we are staring down the barrel of another derivatives blow-up and economic meltdown.
I'm not going to debate the arcane nonsense differences between various flavors of "Libertarianism." It's pointless.
If Ron Paul thinks that going forward greedy investment banks will somehow police themselves, all he has to do is look at the past ten years when they've had complete free market freedom to blow-up the financial world...and did.
They would make these destructive derivatives bets with fiat currency, gold backed dollars, cans of mackrel or glass beads. Doesn't matter to them.
A key step in the battle against the TPTB is to start using a very different vocabulary than we have been using thus far. That is why it is so important to call it what it is, a corporatist oligarchy. The military-industrial-intelligence complex has completely taken over the 'Defense' sector. Mainstream media is owned by a grand total of 6 different mega-corps (was 50, just 25 years ago).
One of the things that has to be erased from our vocabulary, IMO, is 'democrats vs republicans'. This is war, and not between Democrats and Republicans, this is a war waged against the Middle Class, aiming to eradicate them, and reduce them to indentured servitude. This is between the little guy, and those who seek to have control over others.
The political and legal system have been completely co-opted, which leaves the financial system as the best way to affect change. I am not talking about protest, but boycotting the Too Big To Fail banks is certainly a start. After that, convert your wealth into something tangible, food, lead, tools, and then precious metals.
Suffice to say, DO NOT BUY government debt, it is the clearest vote of support in favor of the oligarchy you can give.
http://psychonews.site90.net
PsychoNews: Exposing the Oligarchy, one Psycho at a time.